Although ferociously controversial, the Copenhagen Accord has already garnered the backing of more than half of the UN climate framework’s 194 member countries. What came into being from the ganging up of five super heavyweights — the US, China, India, Brazil and South Africa — and was later supported by the developed countries is now only gradually getting the nod even from the once protesting developing and least developed nations.

How come such a dramatic increase in the support for a document that two months ago had not been endorsed by even 30 countries leading to the collapse of the Copenhagen conference? The story might not be the same in all the developing and least developed worlds. But perhaps Nepal offers a plausible clue. Here is an account of an investigation I did for a report for the BBC.

Highly placed government and diplomatic sources told me that the US and Japan lobbied to get Nepal to support the disputed accord. After the UN climate summit in the Danish capital refused to adopt it, Nepal along with other vulnerable least developed countries had stressed that global temperature rise should be limited to 1.5 degrees Celsius from the pre-industrial period and that the Kyoto Protocol should get continuity. They made these points because the accord talks about limiting temperature rise to 2 degrees and does not at all mention the first climate treaty signed in Kyoto 13 years ago.

Above all, the Copenhagen accord is not legally binding; the biggest concern for the climatically most vulnerable countries because that would not guarantee control in temperature rise. That way, while climate-related risks like increased floods, landslides, droughts, typhoons and decreased farm outputs remain unchanged, Nepal’s position on the accord has suddenly changed.

On Jan. 31, the Environment Ministry conveyed to the UN climate change secretariat its decision “to be associated with the Copenhagen Accord”. The minister in charge Thakur Sharma insists that it was the government’s own decision. But highly reliable sources said US and Japanese officials and diplomats were quite keen to know what Nepal would do while replying to the UN that had asked member countries for a response to the accord.

‘Benefit of bilateral aid’

During some of the conversations, they said, Nepali officials had been reminded of the benefits including bilateral aid if the country signed the controversy-ridden accord.

“It was not direct pressure, but indirectly it was.”

An insider at the US administration said that the principal deputy assistant secretary of state Patrick Moon had getting Nepal on board the Copenhagen Accord as one of the main objectives of his Kathmandu visit last month. The diplomatic offensive was not just confined within the Ring Road of the Kathmandu Valley. Nepali missions in the US too saw active lobbying by the US and other foreign officials and diplomats. In effect, these missions were passing on messages to the Prime Minister’s Office and making inquiries on the progress, said a knowledgeable source at the PMO.

A senior diplomatic source in the US confirmed to me that the Nepal embassy in Washington had to report to the PMO that American officials were stressing support for the accord. The US embassy in Kathmandu chose not to make any comment. A spokesperson at the Japanese embassy in Kathmandu said the issue involved bilateral relations between Japan and Nepal and, therefore, no comment could be made.

Now it is becoming clear why Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal, who was once so critical of what had happened in Copenhagen, had suddenly begun to say, “There is no point in following Cuba and Venezuela” (the Latin American countries that have vehemently opposed the accord). But the question is whether it makes any point following the US, Japan and other developed countries.

For and against Kyoto

The rich nations are supporting the Copenhagen Accord clearly because it sidesteps their nemesis, the Kyoto track and it has managed to get in emerging economies and carbon-emitting giants like China and India. The developed worlds wish to get rid of the Kyoto Protocol because it has a mandatory provision for them to cut down greenhouse gases blamed for climate change while fast developing countries like China and India are exempted.

But so much has changed in climate change politics ever since the US and the BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) countries surprisingly came out of a room at the Bella Centre in Copenhagen with the accord. While more than half of the UN climate framework’s member countries have supported it, two of its main designers — China and India — have not yet made it clear if they will fully endorse the deal. They have rather yet again become fans of the UN climate negotiation process, apparently to push for the Kyoto track. That much was clearly evident in a follow-up to Copenhagen they did in Delhi recently.

“I think India and China have realised that they have either been misled or cheated, there is a definite rethink on what the accord is going to achieve — nothing,” Raman Mehta of Climate Action Network of South Asia told The Hindustan Times.

“They have realised that the UN is the best way to move forward.”

But with the developed countries and the fast developing ones headed for a confrontation on how to hold negotiations, moving forward will not be easy. Which means rich countries will not so easily open their purses for the US$ 10 billion a year climate fund they promised in Copenhagen for the developing and least developed countries. And even if they did, it would hardly make any difference to Nepal — it has not been able to fully use the already available climate funds.

(The author is a BBC journalist based in London)

Navin Singh Khadka

navin.khadka@gmail.com

Post Your Comment

Please note that all the fields marked * are mandatory.
* Full Name
* Address
* Email Address
* Comment
* Captcha	Get another CAPTCHA code
Note:	Comments containing abusive words or slander shall not be published.